Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

Staley: Thrasher qualified

The departure of Florida State University provost Garnett Stokes has prompted another round of hand wringing over John Thrasher’s election to president of the university. While no one believes he will resign or be fired by the Board of Trustees, the emotion surrounding his appointment continues to weigh heavily on students, faculty and alumni.

This is unfortunate.

While the search process was unconventional and flawed, Thrasher’s background reveals he was far more qualified to apply for the position than his critics will admit. In fact, a sober analysis of Florida State’s financial position suggests he had unique qualifications that more than justified his inclusion in the final group of candidates.

Few of Thrasher’s critics appear to have understood the operational challenges facing the Florida State at the time of Eric Barron’s resignation. Barron helped restore faith and morale among the professoriate primarily by stabilizing the university’s financial bottom line, effectively selling a strategic mission for the university and successfully lobbying the legislature for funds to rebuild the faculty after years of devastating cut backs.

Barron’s sudden departure, however, had a profound effect on the substance of the search process. These effects played well into Thrasher’s strengths and against the weaknesses of more conventional candidates.

First, the Board of Trustees was not looking for a change agent — nothing really needed to be fixed. The best candidates would be implementing and adjusting a strategic plan that they didn’t have a hand in crafting. This opened the door for non-traditional candidate such as Thrasher.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, the university was left without its most important leader at a critical time in a university’s fundraising cycle. Florida State was in the midst of raising funds and rolling out the carpet on a $1 billion fundraising initiative. The official launch was set for October 2014, seven months after Barron’s resignation.

It’s hard to underestimate the importance of the second point, particularly since the university had not fully recovered from the recession-induced reduction in full-time faculty. FSU is a billion dollar enterprise, with an operating budget over $500 million. Tuition contributes to just 25 percent of the university’s operating budget. “Auxiliary enterprises” such as housing, dining and parking make up another 15 percent. That means more than half the budget comes from other sources. External grants make up about 20 percent. The remainder comes from alumni, trademarks and, most importantly, direct subsidies from the state legislature.

In short, a candidate that can bring strong fundraising skills to the table can move up quickly. Oddly, but perhaps not too surprisingly, faculty, students and alumni opposing Thrasher paid little attention to this part of his resume’ and virtually ignored the lack of depth in these critical areas among the more conventional candidates.

None of the candidates, at least on paper, could match the layers of Thrasher’s connections to alumni or understanding of the politics surrounding higher education in Florida. These are crucial networks and connections that will be essential to providing financial stability and growth for the university. Indeed, Thrasher’s accomplishments on the funding and governance aspects of running Florida State University simply couldn’t be matched by conventional, out-of-state candidates.

Of course, professional prominence is, and should be, an important attribute of a candidate, and this was President Thrasher’s weakest part of his resume. In practical terms, however, the academic and research components of a large university’s mission are typically managed by the provost, not the president. The president works with the Board of Trustees to develop and implement the mission and strategic plan for the university, run the operational side of the institution efficiently and ethically, and ensure its financial stability.

All this isn’t to say John Thrasher was the necessarily the best candidate. Rather, it simply points out that he was qualified to be in the final round of candidates. Of course, ultimately, the decision to hire the president rests with the Board of Trustees.

I came to Florida State in September 2011 to teach and run an applied research center after after 25 years in the nonprofit private sector. I saw little in President Thrasher’s background to suggest my professional goals and expectations would be compromised by his presidency and a lot to suggest he might be able to make my job easier.

While only time and experience will tell if President Thrasher is the right fit for the FSU presidency, I have seen nothing in President Thrasher’s short tenure to change my thinking.

Hopefully alumni will be patient and give Thrasher the room he needs to prove the Board’s faith in his professional background and commitment was well placed. Our students and faculty deserve nothing less.

Samuel R. Staley is director of the DeVoe L. Moore Center in the College of Social Sciences and Public Policy at Florida State University. He is the author of five books on public policy, more than 100 published academic articles and professional reports, and 25 years of experience in executive nonprofit management, program management and fundraising.